Interest Groups

About the data in these industry profiles

These profiles show the results of more than two decades of research by the Center for Responsive Politics on the funding of
federal elections. While these are the most accurate numbers currently available, we constantly refine the data and will update
the figures as often as possible. Totals for the current election cycle are typically updated every three to four weeks. Data from
earlier years is updated as time and resources allow.

All numbers attributed to a particular industry can be assumed to be conservative. Tens of millions of dollars of contributions
in each election cycle are not classified by industry at all — either because the original data is incomplete or too vague to
categorize, or because of limitations on the Center's ability to fully research the millions of individual contributions given over
the years.

The Center is the only organization that invests in categorizing campaign contributions by industry in a way that includes individuals'
contributions, not just money from political action committees (PACs). Here's the logic behind our methodology, whether it's the oil/gasindustry,
pharmaceutical industry or any of the hundreds of industries and interest groups we track on this site: Since corporations and other organizations
are prohibited from making direct political contributions from their treasuries to political candidates, you have to look at the contributions
from people associated with the institution to gauge its political persuasion and how it might be trying to exert influence in Washington.

We know that not every contribution is made with the donor's economic or professional interests in mind, nor do we assert that every donor
considers their employer's interests when they make a contribution. (You'll notice language to this effect sprinkled throughout the site — often
in bold, red lettering — since we're frequently asked about our rationale.) Lacking information from the contributors and candidates on the
motivations behind each donation, we go with the information that's required to be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission: name, address,
employer/occupation, amount contributed and date received. Our research over more than 20 years shows a correlation between individuals' contributions
and their employers' political interests and we have also observed that the donors we know about, and especially those who contribute at the maximum
levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees.

Of course, in our industry totals we also include contributions from an industry's political action committees, which is also raised from
individuals but gets directed to candidates by the corporation, trade association, union or other entity that controls the PAC. While PAC money
is easy to classify by industry, individual contributions to candidates and parties are far more difficult to classify — both because of the huge
number of contributions, and because the data is based on employer/occupation data that is often incomplete. In most election cycles, approximately
70% of the contributions have been categorized based on the occupation/employer reported by the donor. Generally speaking, the Center's coding is
more complete in more recent election cycles than in the earlier years.

We also know that many individuals make political donations due to partisan allegiances and ideological reasons. For years, our methodology
related to ideological classifications has examined the relationship between individual contributors, ideological PACs and candidates in order
to determine whether to count a particular donation to a candidate as ideological.

This approach can be thought of as a three-legged stool -- and to be classified as an ideological donation, all three legs of the stool are needed.

First, we compile two lists: one of all donors who have given at least $200 to PACs focused on a single issue and one of all candidates who
have received contributions from ideological PACs.

Next, we use these two lists in combination with the itemized contribution data to build our three-legged stool. In cases where individual
contributors have given both to an ideological PAC and to a candidate who received contributions from the same or similar PACs, the contributions
from the individual to the candidate are assigned the ideological code instead of the economic code of the individuals' employer.

Generic ideological codes such as "Liberal" or "Republican" are only applied when the employer or the industry of the employer has not been
determined or the donor is retired. Otherwise they are not allowed to override economic categories. Because the very nature of their work is to
influence government policy, employees of lobbying firms never have their industry category overridden, even by specific ideological codes. Special
attention is paid to individuals we have identified as major or otherwise important donors. Presidential campaigns since 2000 have all featured at
least one major candidate who did not accept contributions from PACs. To avoid drastically undercounting ideological giving to those candidates, we
use an altered method that assumes contributions to presidential candidates from individuals who gave to a single issue ideological PAC were motivated
by that issue. This logic is applied to all presidential candidates in the relevant elections.

No information is available for individual contributions of less than $200. Those contributions are not itemized by candidates, but rather reported
in bulk. No soft money data is available for the 1989-90 election cycle. Such contributions were not required to be disclosed until 1991. Soft money
was outlawed beginning with the 2004 election cycle.

Following the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the 2010 election marked the rise of a new type of political committee, dubbed "super PACs,"
and officially known as "independent expenditure-only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well
as from wealthy individuals. Super PACs may overtly advocate for the defeat or election of federal candidates. In addition to super PACs and regular
political action committees (which raise money via contributions capped at $5,000 per year), special interest groups also have other vehicles at their
disposal to influence elections and policy. These include 527 organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service and 501(c) nonprofits, which
aren't primarily supposed to be involved in politics, but are allowed limited political activity. 501(c) groups must also register with the IRS, but
do not have to publicly disclose their donors.

If you find standardization errors — or any
other kinds of errors — we'd appreciate hearing from you. Just drop us
an email at info@crp.org. We also
welcome your suggestions and comments.

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.